MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automated visual inspection and defect detection of large-scale silicon strip sensors

2022· article· en· W4221103586 on OpenAlexaff
K. Affolder, A. Ciocio, Earl Cornell, V. Fadeyev, Z. Luce, J. Gunnell, F. Martinez-Mckinney, Teegan Johnson, R. MacFadyen, L. Poley, K. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Instrumentation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorComputer scienceAutomated X-ray inspectionVisual inspectionImage sensorPixelProcess (computing)Reliability (semiconductor)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionUpgradeTracking (education)Computer hardwareImage processingImage (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For the Phase-II Upgrade of the ATLAS Detector, the Inner Detector will be replaced with the Inner Tracker (ITk), consisting of a pixel and a strip tracker. The 17,888 silicon strip detector modules comprising the ITk strip tracker will be assembled from silicon strip sensors and flexes with readout chips in a manual assembly process performed at 20 module assembly sites in a complex distribution chain, which requires quality control steps to be performed after each distribution and assembly step. Sensor quality control requires a visual inspection of the full sensor area (about 100 cm2) of each sensor to detect and log any defects (e.g. scratches, breakdown areas or chipped corners) or contamination. Since manual surveys of full sensor areas for several thousand sensors are both time-consuming and prone to errors, alternative methods were investigated to automate the process and improve its reliability. This paper presents a setup developed to take high-resolution images of full silicon strip sensors with high repeatability quickly and an algorithm developed for the automated detection of defects, built using functions and filters from popular open-source visual processing packages OpenCV and Scikit-image. Methods were developed both for small-scale high-resolution images and full-size sensor images with lower resolution — both are presented here.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of InstrumentationSame topicImage Processing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207